IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 235 of 2006()
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BAIJUMON V.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN,
... Respondent
2. RAJAN D., S/O.DHANANJAYAN,
3. SIRAJ, S/O.SALAVUDEEN, PHATHIMATHU HOUSE
4. K.C.MATHEW, S/O.CHACKO,
5. MANJU SHERIF, VALATHUCHERY,
6. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
M.A.C.A. Nos. 235 & 406 of 2006
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
These two appeals are directed against a common
award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kottayam in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1940 and 1941 of 1998.
2. The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled
to get compensation of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.11,500/-
respectively. The appellant Insurance Company, which had
allegedly issued a valid insurance policy in respect of the
offending vehicle (bus), was directed to pay the
compensation to the claimants.
3. The said award is challenged by the appellant
Insurance Company, contending that insurance policy had
not been issued by the appellant in respect of the offending
vehicle, as alleged by the claimants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
MACA 235 & 406/06 2
and learned counsel for the second respondent. Though
notice has been served on the owner of the offending
vehicle, he has not appeared either in person or through
counsel.
5. In M.A.C.A.No.235 of 2006 the claimant has
accepted notice, but he has not entered appearance either
in person or through counsel. In M.A.C.A.No.406 of 2006
notice to respondents 1 to 5 was taken out by paper
application. Except the driver of the bus, others have not
appeared.
6. The specific case of the appellant before the
Tribunal was that the offending vehicle was not covered
under a valid insurance policy. Though such a specific
contention was raised, the owner of the vehicle did not
choose to adduce any evidence to controvert the above
contention. But still the Tribunal took the view that the
Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner. We
are of the view that the above conclusion arrived at by the
Tribunal is without any justification.
MACA 235 & 406/06 3
7. In that view of the matter the impugned award is
modified. The direction to the appellant to pay the
compensation is set aside. It necessarily follows that the
claimant shall be entitled to recover the amount of
compensation only from the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle.
The appeals are disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.
mn.